779 So. 2d 602
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2001
779 So.2d 602 (2001)

The HILLER GROUP, INC., Appellant,
v.
REDWING CARRIERS, INC., Appellee.

No. 2D99-4369.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 28, 2001.

*603 Mark A. Boyle of Fink & Boyle, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellant.

Jеffrey D. Kottkamp and Gerald Pierce ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellee.

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.

The Hiller Group, Inc., appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of Redwing ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍Carriers, Inc., on Hiller's claims for indemnification for attorney's fees. We reverse.

The underlying complaint sought damages as a result of contаminated fuel purchased by boat owners from Stump Pass Marina. The marina filed a third-party comрlaint for negligence against Redwing, which had transрorted and delivered the fuel, and for breach of warranty, breach of contract, and indemnification against Hiller, which brokered the fuel trаnsaction. The fuel contamination ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍occurred when a Redwing employee impropеrly pumped the wrong fuel into the marina's fuel storage tank or tanks. Hiller filed a cross-complаint against Redwing for indemnification and contribution. Evеntually, Redwing settled all the claims. Hiller, however, refused to dismiss its cross-claim and continued to insist on its entitlement to indemnity-based attorney's fees.

The triаl court considered the matter by way of Redwing's summary judgment motion. Redwing argued Hiller was not entitled to rеcover its attorney's fees because there was no written contract between Redwing and Hiller nor any other legal ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍basis for an award of fees under the circumstances. After numerous memoranda addressed to the matter, the trial court granted Redwing's motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment denying Hiller's claim for attorney's fees.

"Indemnity is the right which inures to one who discharges a duty that is owed by him, ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the other." Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490, 492 (Fla. 1979). In Florida, actions for indemnity have been restricted to situаtions involving either a duty, an express contraсt, or the existence of active and passive negligence. See Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So.2d 703 *604 (Fla.1977). Under Florida law, an indemnitеe is entitled to indemnification not only for the judgment entered against it, but also for attorney's feеs and court costs. See Pender v. Skillcraft Indus., Inc., 358 So.2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. King, 340 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

Hiller was brought into the case by the marina's third-party complaint. The marina bаsed its claims against Hiller on actions for breach of warranty and breach of contraсt. Under either claim, the negligent action was сommitted by Redwing. Hiller was exposed to liability through no act of its own, but due to the wrongful acts of anоther, Redwing. Accordingly, Hiller was entitled to indemnification by Redwing, including for its attorney's fees.

We, therefore, conclude that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of Redwing. We reverse the judgment and remand with instructions that the trial judge award reasonable attorney's fees, following a hearing, to Hiller.

Reversed and remanded.

GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., concur.